9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the complaint under Section 210 of the Companies Act is maintainable without averment of holding an annual meeting. 2. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioners sought to quash the private complaint filed against them under Section 210 of the Companies Act, alleging the offence was not maintainable due to the absence of averment regarding the holding of an annual meeting where documents were not placed. The petitioners argued that without a meeting, the offence could not be established. However, the court disagreed, citing Supreme Court precedents that emphasized the obligation to hold a meeting and attach penalties for non-compliance, regardless of whether the meeting was actually convened. The court highlighted that failure to call a meeting willfully does not absolve the accused of the offence. The judgment referenced various cases to support this interpretation, ultimately rejecting the petitioners' contention. 2. The second issue raised was whether the complaint was time-barred. The petitioners contended that the complaint should have been filed within six months of the alleged offence, which they claimed was complete by a specific date. However, the court clarified that the offence under Section 210 of the Act carried a punishment of imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to Rs. 1,000, falling under the one-year limitation period as per the Criminal Procedure Code. The court determined that the complaint filed within one year from the alleged offence date was within the statutory limitation. The court dismissed the argument that the limitation period should be calculated based on the respondent's knowledge of the offence, emphasizing the clear statutory provisions governing the timeframe for filing such complaints. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the maintainability of the complaint under Section 210 of the Companies Act and ruling that the complaint was not time-barred. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles and precedents governing the issues raised by the petitioners, ultimately affirming the validity of the ongoing proceedings against the accused individuals.
|
